HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.26.92 Work Session Minutes
{y",- 01
..... OJ
MINUTES
SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP
COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, BRA
OCTOBER 26, 1992
1. Acting Mayor Galler called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. at the Senior Center.
Members Present: Mayer, Orr, Rotty, Galler.
Members Absent: Kuchera.
Also Present: Administrator Thompson, Planner Tooker, HRA Executive Director Henricks,
HRA Members Sprute, Thelen. Planning Commission Members Hanson,
Thelen, Schlawin, Gramentz.
2. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the following topics:
a. Rosebrier Apartments,
b. Elm Park Retail Center,
c. Very Low Density Housing,
d. Development Design Standards.
3. Administrator Thompson noted that the purpose of the workshop was not to make
decisions on the various topics. Administrator Thompson presented an outline of
various issues and concerns raised during discussion of the topics.
Rosebrier Apartments
Executive Director Henricks presented an
in site plan from the original proposal.
points:
a. Because of the site limitations, the present plan would require "elderly" zoning
designation.
overview of the project, noting the change
There was general agreement on the following
b. There was "soft" support for the present orientation. The building should be
reoriented to the original plan if it is elderly.
c. If the developer could not secure financing under the "elderly" designation,
the City should pursue future elderly housing on the site with the following
priorities:
1. private developer ownership,
2. Dakota County HRA/non profit ownership,
3. City/HRA ownership.
(Councilmember Galler and Planning Commission Member Schlawin dissented indicating
that private ownership was a priority and would support pursuing the "adult" housing
concept. Councilmember Mayer stated he would prefer City/HRA ownership over Dakota
County HRA ownership. Councilmember Rotty, Planning Commission Chair Hanson and
HRA Member Thelen stated that they would not support City/HRA ownership.)
d. There was support for adult housing if the developer acquired and removed the
Ostlie property. Staff can investigate other programs for facilitating the
purchase through the Dakota County HRA.
Elm Park Retail Center
Executive Director Henricks presented an overview of the project, noting the location
of 2 design concepts (with and without Main Street crossing).
a. Construction must begin on April 15, 1993 and the HRA is not predisposed to
granting an extension. Therefore, the developer should immediately submit
required materials and information for zoning and subdivision review.
~{j Joint Workshop Meeting - 10/26/92 - Page 2
b. The $1,000,000 G.O. TIF Bond is acceptable if it does not impact the City's
bond rating as determined by Springsted and Mooody's. The proposed surety
as stated in the developers agreement (bank to guarantee the TIF payment
with the deed held by the HRA in the event of default) is acceptable. The
only acceptable alternative is a Letter of Credit equalling 3-4 years of
TIF payments.
c. Assessments:
1. Developer to pay fair share of assessment.
2. Other adjacent property owners to be assessed only to the extent of benefit.
(Deferment was discussed with no consensus.)
3. Staff to explore the use of MSA Funds.
d. The plat should include the Main Street railroad crossing with a temporary
cul-de-sac allowed until the property develops to the north. Cost of extension
should be addressed in the developers agreement.
e. The design should not be "box like" and should compliment the dental clinic.
f. The Library/Erickson building concept is acceptable provided the City obtain
a commitment (10 years) from the County.
Very Low Density
Administrator Thompson presented a history of the very low density housing concept.
The following issues were discussed.
a. The appropriate location would be in the southwest area of Farmington. It should
be oriented not to create a "fence" which may block the extension of utilities
to higher density development.
b. Other issues identified but upon which no consensus was reached were:
1. Ghost platting with the possibility of future splits.
2. Environmental considerations such as trees and wetlands.
3. Developer rights (which property owner gets to develop the 64 lots within
a section). Some ideas were the amount of wetlands and orientation to
future developments ("fences").
4. Land uses.
5. Paved roads.
Development Design and Standards
Planner Tooker presented a proposed ordinance which would address development design
and standards for review. Mr. Tooker gave a brief overview of the ordinance. The
only issue raised was the need for the ordinance because of the growing number of
questions raised by the Planning Commission relating to outbuildings, accessory
structures and garages.
4. MOTION by Orr, second by Mayer to adjourn at 10:15 P.M.. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
~~UllY submitted.
Larry Thompson
City Administrator
Approved
1I/2/?;q
,